evilos

13 ms·

121.
by evilos 3y ago
There's been so few serious Tritium exposures in humans so we don't know how much it would take to cause serious harm in humans. There have been some limited studies done on things like yeast and mice which suggest you'd have
122.
by evilos 3y ago
Indefinitely since they are alpha emitters. This kind of radiation is stopped by almost anything like paper and the dead outer layer of skin and so is harmless unless you ingest the source. Fact is, the waste that everyone is worried about
123.
by evilos 3y ago
> Vogtlr is the norm for advanced developed countries. It is for countries that only build a few reactors. Again, China and Korea don't have this problem because they build lots of reactors. They aren't aliens. China doesn&#x27
124.
by evilos 3y ago
I can't think of a worse way to make money than a thorium energy start up. The people that are into Thorium are zealots, they're not in it for the money. The author of that article founded and sold a software company, worked as a
125.
by evilos 3y ago
Reached the thread length limit. With regard to your last comment: > It's most definitely not the case that successive reactors are cheaper or faster, that's a myth that gets told but the data says otherwise both in the US and
126.
by evilos 3y ago
Nope, half life is inversely proportional to danger. The longer the half life, the less dangerous it is to handle an isotope. You can hold Plutonium and Uranium in your hand without issue. You'd have to eat lots of Pu-239 to get sick a
127.
by evilos 3y ago
Low/mid waste is mostly just normal trash after it sits for a year or two. Going through the trouble and expense of burying all of it like it's spent nuclear fuel is just wasted money. We spend billions of dollars pretending light
128.
by evilos 3y ago
I guess you should tell Poland because they've just ordered several. The first reactor is always the slowest and most expensive because you're going to make mistakes. Building just one is always a mistake. We've paid the depo
129.
by evilos 3y ago
Dry cask storage on site is absolutely safe. It's dry waste, there's nothing to leak. It sits in reinforced concrete casks that are rated to last over a hundred years. After that, you can just put it in a new cask and repeat. Ther
130.
by evilos 3y ago
Fair, I meant 'intermittent' when I said 'renewable'. Geothermal and hydro are very different since they can be relied upon for the most part. Hydro sometimes has issues with water levels, which may be exacerbated by cli
131.
by evilos 3y ago
The UK is very much an outlier in the nuclear sector as they went with impossible to refurbish gas cooled reactors. Their experience is unlikely to resemble other countries. In the US at least, the cost for all decommissioning and fuel hand
132.
by evilos 3y ago
Fortunately that's not true. The fission products that are actually dangerous only stick around for 300 to 600 years [1]. After that, you'd have to ingest what is left to be harmed. We have existing facilities [2] in the US where
133.
by evilos 3y ago
> That stat is effectively impossible to nail down after the fact Sure, but given how long we've been burning coal and how dirty it is I'm positive that tens of millions is a gross undercount. It's not about getting an exa
134.
by evilos 3y ago
We already paid the first of a kind cost at Votgle, ordering several more AP1000s is exactly what we should do at this point. We now have a workforce that has made the mistakes and knows what not to do. If you don't want to do that, yo
135.
by evilos 3y ago
Everyone is assuming/hoping that a majority renewables national energy system is possible/economical. I don't think it is, but even if you do it's a gamble. No one is sure because it's not been done before. At a min
136.
by evilos 3y ago
I guess you think the Koreans and Chinese are just fundamentally different from everyone else then because they're pumping out reactors just fine, today. The French, Americans, Russians, and Japanese have all had periods of time where
137.
by evilos 3y ago
You'd hate to be anywhere near a coal plant then. They absolutely spew radiation and don't even really try to contain it. Fact is, every kind of energy is dirty in some way. Nuclear energy is one of the cleanest kinds of energy we
138.
by evilos 3y ago
Coal has killed tens of millions from air pollution alone. Civilian nuclear power has probably killed on the order of a few thousand, at most. The studies that say millions have died as a result from Chernobyl is propaganda funded by Greenp
139.
by evilos 3y ago
Based on the graphs from that site, demand never drops low enough to need to lower the output of the nuclear plants.
140.
by evilos 3y ago
What are you basing these statements on?
141.
by evilos 3y ago
> one of the plant regularly leaks radioactive material Probably just Tritiated water which is essentially harmless. Basically water with extra neutrons and it is very weakly radioactive. So weak that you can't detect it with a Geig
142.
by evilos 3y ago
Almost nothing about civilization is emissions free. In the context of comparing energy sources, it's a totally reasonable statement. It's only when you present it cut-off like you did that it sounds wrong. You're criticizing
143.
by evilos 3y ago
So I guess this is what Bryan Cantrill meant when he said that a million kittens were slaughtered every time you boot your CPU.
144.
by evilos 4y ago
I'm just paraphrasing (likely poorly) Associate Professor of Mining Engineering Simon Michaux. He wrote a ~1000 page report on this. I assume he understands those definitions of reserves etc. Lithium is only one of the minerals we seem
145.
by evilos 4y ago
> Not only is 48 / 4 not 4, Sorry it is late here. > but serious proposals like this one https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26355-z don't involve trying to replace the last 20% of electrical gen
146.
by evilos 4y ago
You started by trying to discredit the work based on the author's work history. Then you threw out a few unspecific attacks on his data sources. Hardly convincing. Essentially name calling. > The absolute most generous interpretatio
147.
by evilos 4y ago
> Stil 4x as long as any serious proposal I'd love to see this serious proposal that says we can globally replace fossil fuels with intermittents and 4 hours of energy storage. > That's a very nice double standard where the
148.
by evilos 4y ago
He considers LFP in his more recent work and you still run into mineral constraints. Even if you take his 4 week buffer to 48 hours. > 1kg of lithium gets you 1kW of diurnal storage for a decade or two, whereas 1kg of Uranium gets you 1k
149.
by evilos 4y ago
Ah good old ad hominem. Never fails to show up. It's true he worked in Australian mining (I assume coal). The guy has been working in industrial recycling and 'circular economy' since 2015 https://www.simonmichaux.
150.
by evilos 4y ago
Yes there are many competing battery technologies in the works right now and I sincerely hope that one of them turns out to be manufacturable/scalable. Or any kind of energy storage becomes cheap at Terra-watt hour capacities. But righ

More ›